Hon. Tracy Muggli: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in full support of Bill S-242, An Act respecting national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence, also known as Georgina’s Law, and to advocate for its rapid passage through this chamber without further delay.

I am humbled to make this speech today in Georgina’s presence. Thank you for your courage in bringing attention to this important issue and your patience as we move this bill along.

And thank you, Senator Manning, for your persistence in getting this bill to the finish line.

Intimate partner violence is one of the most pervasive and damaging forms of violence in our country. It cuts across geography, income, culture and age. Yet our responses remain fragmented, inconsistent and, far too often, reactive rather than preventative.

In 2024, Saskatchewan published a police-reported intimate partner violence rate of 714 incidents per 100,000 people — a rate that is double the national average. According to the RCMP, more than one quarter of all violent crime reported in their Saskatchewan jurisdictions was intimate partner violence. Saskatchewan has the unfortunate claim of leading all provinces in rates of intimate partner violence year after year, and I emphasize, often twice the national rate.

As we continue to inadequately address prevention, dedicated partners in this field, like the Central Urban Métis Federation Inc., continue to open new safe sheltering and transitional housing spaces for women fleeing domestic violence.

We thank you and all organizations working in this space for providing these services as they continue to be needed.

The numbers alone should compel action. What should compel us here in the Senate to move quickly is the knowledge that we already understand the problem. We have heard from survivors, and we are thankfully seeing some action being taken in certain jurisdictions throughout the long process that it has taken to get this bill passed.

Bill S-242 helps fill a critical gap in our federal framework. While Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, focuses rightly on enforcement, accountability and protections after crimes have occurred, Bill S-242 focuses on prevention — stopping violence before it begins or escalates.

These two approaches are not in conflict; they are complementary. Bill C-16 responds when the justice system is already engaged, but Bill S-242 asks why we allow harm to occur before an intervention is required. This bill can help to prioritize education, awareness, stigma reduction, early risk identification and increased coordinated action across jurisdictions. If we are serious about reducing intimate partner violence, prevention cannot be an afterthought. It must be a core pillar of our national response.

One of the clearest arguments for Bill S-242 is the patchwork nature of intimate partner violence prevention and intervention across Canada. Within my own province of Saskatchewan, programming varies dramatically. The IPV programs available to individuals who have caused harm differ significantly between Saskatoon and Regina in structure, duration and content. That means accountability, rehabilitation and prevention outcomes can depend more on one’s location than on best practice or evidence. It also makes it hard to measure outcomes without meaningful investment to do so.

I had the opportunity to meet with IPV program staff in Saskatoon, who felt strongly that it is critical to have early education in school-based programs to prevent dating violence. Young people need support in learning about healthy communication in relationships and how to avoid the consequential online harms related to dating.

Investment in preventative education was also mentioned by the Provincial Association of Transition Houses of Saskatchewan, or PATHS, as being fundamental.

Nationally, the inconsistency is even more pronounced. Some provinces have robust prevention strategies and disclosure tools like Clare’s Law; others do not. Some regions invest heavily in education and early intervention; others struggle with limited capacity and funding. Fragmentation of services and programs can undermine effectiveness, confuse service providers and leave victims and those at risk navigating a maze of uneven supports.

Bill S-242 does not impose a one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, it provides national leadership, coordination and accountability, while respecting provincial jurisdiction. It creates a framework for sharing best practices, identifying gaps and ensuring that prevention is treated as a shared national responsibility rather than an isolated local challenge.

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet with the Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan, which represents domestic violence shelters and counselling centres across the province. They have been clear in their support for this bill and additional measures to reduce IPV, as that has been their focus since their formation in 1984, more than 40 years ago. PATHS states:

Bill S-242 lays out clear steps to ensure action for the prevention of IPV, including annual engagement of the Minister of Women and Gender Equality with other federal ministers and provincial/territorial counterparts, as well as victims and survivors, Indigenous partners and other stakeholders.

Importantly, PATHS highlights that prevention must be informed by those closest to the work:

It is important that IPV professionals, victims and survivors and other stakeholders are consulted regarding current programs and prevention strategies, partnerships and the ongoing and increasing costs of addressing IPV.

We know that proactive, preventative tools can make a real difference. Saskatchewan was the first Canadian province to enact Clare’s Law in 2020, followed by Alberta in 2021, and Newfoundland and Labrador in 2023. Clare’s Law allows individuals to request information about a partner’s history of violence as a “right to ask” and allows police to proactively disclose information when there is a credible risk as a “right to know.”

Despite continuing to have high rates per capita, Saskatchewan’s trend since implementing Clare’s Law has been moving downward. Alberta has seen similar declines. Newfoundland and Labrador has stabilized. All three provinces with Clare’s Law have seen improvement or stabilization. At the same time, national rates of intimate partner violence continue to climb.

While some other provinces have begun work or passed legislation supporting this type of measure, only three provinces have so far implemented legislation.

Dr. Crystal Giesbrecht, the director of research for the Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan, said:

I feel strongly that Clare’s Law is an important tool that empowers people who may be at risk of violence from their partner to access information related to safety, leading to more informed decision-making. Clare’s Law is innovative because it is proactive, as opposed to reactive.

She further indicated that many people who make applications would have no other way of knowing they may be at risk without the disclosure process.

That brings me to a key point. This bill has already been studied at committee. Survivors have spoken. Experts have testified. Frontline organizations have shared their evidence. The gaps in our system are known. This chamber has even voted to pass a previous version of this bill. We now need to initiate action.

I want to be clear: Bill S-242 will not eliminate intimate partner violence. I don’t think anyone claims it will. It does not prescribe exact funding amounts or guarantee immediate uniformity across provinces, but it does do something essential. It commits Canada to sustained national leadership on prevention. It ensures that prevention is not optional or dependent on political cycles. It creates space for accountability, coordination and progress.

Honourable colleagues, intimate partner violence is not inevitable. It is preventable. But prevention requires commitment, coordination and courage. And it is a long time coming. I spent a decade working in this space in the 1990s. We have been talking about coordinated and intentional prevention, as well as better support for victims, since before the terrible tragedy of Polytechnique Montréal in 1989.

That targeted gender-based violence occurred around the same time that, at the age of 24, I was assaulted by a partner and subsequently engaged with a legal system that could not hear or support me. Given the odds, it is unlikely that I am the only one in this chamber with a similar experience. Thankfully, I had many friends and family who could support me through this.

What followed was a decade of social work practice, supporting hundreds of women who were physically, sexually or emotionally abused in their relationships. As I provided the best education, emergency support and therapy I could to support hundreds of survivors to find psychological and physical safety and to heal from the wounds of traumatic bonding, I, as a support provider, was threatened, chased with women and children in tow, stalked, intimidated and manipulated by these desperate abusers.

I experienced many near misses along the way. In fact, police will tell you that these situations are among the most dangerous for them to engage in as well.

So, the biggest challenge remains: How do we stop this cycle of IPV, where abusers believe they have a right to authority in a relationship and a right to the services of their partners, whatever they demand, and where the belief systems are so strongly associated with that dominance that they employ whatever coercion is necessary to maintain it?

How do we understand the root cause of this behaviour that is frequently associated with childhood traumatic events for offenders, including exposure to violence in their own families as they grew up and, for some, directly linked to the oppressions of colonization and residential schools? This, too, must be a part of the strategy and will require investment.

Bill S-242 offers us an opportunity to move beyond fragmented responses and toward a more coherent national approach, one that supports those doing the work on the ground and requires meaningful strategies for preventative education. This bill requires national action.

I look forward to receiving Bill C-16, an act that will allow us to meaningfully debate the creation of a new offence that prohibits engagement in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct toward an intimate partner, behaviour that has devastating psychological ramifications for far too many.

I urge this chamber to pass this bill without further delay and to send a clear message that prevention matters, survivors matter, and delay is no longer acceptable.

Thank you. Meegwetch. Marsee.